We all have the experience of that acquaintance or potential partner who shifted their leisure preferences towards reading, or of those passers-by asked about their tastes in the television they always watched. documentaries on La 2although later save me will sweep the share and our friend’s entire library would fit in one drawer.
At this point there is no need, I think, to reiterate that election surveys are rarely descriptive and are always prescriptive. There is no, like the lottery, innocent hand May he offer us from an angelic distance, out of the pure goodness of his heart, the probable results of a competition with such high stakes. Grace is always to encourage one’s own troops and demoralize opponents.
And it’s not even necessary to lie, that a good public opinion professional is one who is able to get the public to say what is appropriate without the need for pout. This is why it is essential to ignore – or, at best, take with a grain of salt – what people say in order to observe what they do in practice, especially if they put skin in the gameto use the Anglo-Saxon expression.
The important thing is what people actually do with their time and money, what they value: that’s where they express themselves. your real preferences. In the same way, between a random survey where the respondent has no stake in what he says and a bet, I prefer the latter.
And that’s why, at least in North American elections, my favorite poll is the betting markets. There you don’t play with Ludo tokens, but with your money. and there asset takes a comfortable advantage over the inarticulate Harris.
In one of the most powerful, Polymarketbetting today gives 54% of the vote to Trump, compared to 45.4% to Harris.
Furthermore, a recent survey conducted by Harry Craneprofessor of statistics at Rutgers Universityconfirms that the betting prediction market was more accurate than poll predictions, both for the presidential elections and the Senate, House of Representatives and gubernatorial elections. “Sentiment is what surveys measure, accuracy and truth are what markets seek to measure,” he explains.
The main difference is that polls ask people who they want to win, and markets ask people who they think will win through an economic incentive model, which rewards them for accurate analysis. Bettors don’t care which candidate others want to win; They care about who will win, which makes markets more accurate.
During this campaign, Kamala Harris never said anything. It’s not her fault, it’s not that she’s an undocumented person with an empty political brain and left-wing tendencies that scare people. could have been Biden (it was already Biden, in fact), or Josh Shapiroeither Michelle Obama. It doesn’t matter: these elections have only one protagonist, Trump, it’s a referendum on Trump, and it’s a question of seeing if there are more people who hate him than those who love him.
In her last statements, the defenestrated Victoria Nulandarchitect in his time Maidan coup in Ukraine and one of the most recognizable faces of the deep state, declared with terrifying certainty that “Trump will no longer be president.” I don’t take it lightly.
His very powerful adversaries have shown since 2016 until today that they were ready to do anything, anyone, as long as Trump does not ruin their party. They did it in all colors, maneuvers unprecedented in the history of USAand it is not improbable that they had other tricks planned in the event of the New Yorker’s electoral victory.
Even if Trump wins the election by 270 votes or more, Democrats still have another ace up their sleeve. If the Democrats regain control of the Chamber of Deputiesthen on January 6, 2025, the new Democratic-controlled House could pass a resolution declaring Trump an “insurrectionist” and disqualifying his electoral votes under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Kamala would not have the 270 electoral votes needed to win. This would turn the election of the president over to the House of Representatives, which would vote as state delegations, not as individuals. According to the Amendment XII (1804), only Kamala Harris could receive votes for the presidency, assuming Trump was disqualified and no other candidate gained electorates.
Another option is Republican-controlled state delegations in the House of Representatives. boycott the presidential votein which case there would be no quorum.
And there opens a terrifying Pandora’s box which could result in a real chaos in the United States. Stay tuned to your screens.
